On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:13:09AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 19/12/2011 08:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > Here is one problem: we have choice from three items: > > > > (1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" FreeBSD > > > > (2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" Phoronix > > (communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare > > / meaningless, ets) > > (2a) Ignore Phoronix, other than explaining concisely why their numbers > are complete balderdash. Publish our own benchmarks, done with care and > rigour and using well defined, repeatable, peer reviewed methodology > that anyone can repeat. Aggressively publicise these results. > Slashdot and others don't ignore Phoronix, so (2a) is only and option if you accept (3). My personal opinion: Phoronix may compare apples to oranges from time to time and it might be possible to catch up with Linux' results by tweaking some system parameters, but Joe Average expects a fast and working OS out-of-the-box and after reading a Phoronix benchmark, he will probably prefer Linux over FreeBSD. /me thinks that our userbase is not big enough to put off potential new or existing users, so we should question our default config values or clearly and publicly explain why the results for FreeBSD are slower because of data integrity / security / $other_reasons. > > (3) Lose [potential] userbase. > > Indeed. Unfortunately "performance" is /the/ deciding factor in many OS > choices, never mind that it is an impossibly complex subject to > generalise to a few management-friendly numbers in a one-size-fits-all > abstract way. Having only one source of published numbers suggesting > that "OS Foo is better" *even if those numbers are completely bogus* > will have a disproportionate effect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC